ML20032D962
| ML20032D962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1981 |
| From: | Halligan T CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111190374 | |
| Download: ML20032D962 (2) | |
Text
<
o W
Ostaber 24, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
BERWICK ATOMIC POWER PLANT AND SUSQUEHANNA UNITS 1 & 2' ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
DOCKET NOS. 50-387, e
(('h CITIZENS AGAINST~ NUCLEAR ^ DANGERS
((
It APPEAL OF ASLB' DECISION ON CHLORINE PART OF CONTENTION 2
//0VJ 31981w.
24 B;
v.s.,,,i,%%mn
~
m 0
The 01tizens appeal the instant decision of the ASLB, hpdered
\\
verbally on Thursday af ternoon, October 15, 1981, at the publi-hearin6s held in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., whereby that part of Cbntention.2 pertaining to Chlorine, and its impacts on the drinking water of Danville, Pa., was removed from consideration on the same day it was scheduledfordirecktestimony.
The ASLB approved the Applicants end/or the NRC's motion for summary disposition on the Chlorine issue.
In addition to being a very unfair and capricious jud ement, the 6
(
Citizens alle6e that in would appear that ex narte communications, involvin6 the Applicants and the Chairman of the ASLB, played a role
.in the decision makin6 Therefore, besides petitionin6 the Appeal Board, this matter will be brought to the attention of the investi6ative arm of the U.S. Con 6ress (GAO) as an example o,f the misuse of administrative power and a violation of the civil rights of citizens to petition Government thru the public h k process.
It would not appear that' this appeal, nor t v ous appeals on parts of Contention 2, are interlocutory because bac sechonof Contention 2 is one of the few icoortant unreso I
ntal
- 407, D
o b
8111190374 811024 PDR ADOCK 05000387 G
_ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ j
4 8'
2 issues remainin6 in the case.
By dismissing each part of Contention 2 the ASLB has made a final decision.
Therefore, the grounds for these oppeals.
Ar6uments-in support for these appeals will be submitted as soon as the ASLB publishes its written order on the summery dispositions of Contention 2, explaining the reasons for the dismissal actions taken.
Respectfully submi'tted M*
DBted: ' October 24, 1981 Correspondeny '.
gf c
CERTITICATE OF SEiM/ ICE I hereby certify that copies of Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Abpeal Of ASLB~ Decision On Chlorine Part' Of Contention 2 have been cerved on all parties to this proceeding by deposit in the U.S. nail, first class;. this 24th day of October,1981..
l Y
f e
.